Since the introduction of artificial hairpieces, toupees and wigs were generally held in place by either using hair pins to attach the hairpiece to the remaining natural hair of the wearer or causing there to be a tight frictional fit between the scalp of the wearer and the underside of the worn hairpiece.
Alternatively, one or more strips of double-sided adhesive tape were applied to the underside of the hairpiece. The exposed, lower side or surface of the adhesive tape which was secured to the hairpiece was then urged against the scalp of the person to secure the hairpiece in place. Thus positioned, the hairpiece was held in place by the adhesive forces associated with the double-sided adhesive tape.
Another means heretofore used to attach a hairpiece to the head of a wearer required that a plurality of pins or posts be surgically secured or attached to the skull of the wearer. Such securement or attachment generally required that the scalp of the wearer be pierced, a plurality of holes be drilled into the skull of the wearer, and threaded pins or posts be forced and rotated into the drilled holes.
Each pin or post extended outwardly from a mechanically attached portion located within the wearer's skull, through a hole drilled within the scalp or skin of the wearer, to an exposed and accessible portion. In other words, the pins or posts extended through and past the skin of the wearer's scalp. The hairpiece was then mechanically secured to the outwardly projecting, terminal end of the pins or posts by the use of snaps.
Surgical placement of the implanted pins or posts into the skull of the person is a dangerous, painful and expensive operation. The skin surrounding the pins or posts usually does not heal properly. Infections of the scalp are very common. When a hairpiece is not worn, the appearance of the person wearing such pins or posts is not very attractive. Pressures urged against the pins or posts, such as imparted by a pillow when sleeping or from making unintentional contact with other objects, are not only uncomfortable, but place undue leverage against the pins or posts and increase the possibility that the skull might fracture about the base of the pins or posts. Furthermore, the effects of heat and cold are quickly transmitted through the metallic pins or posts into the scalp and skull of the wearer.
In summary, procedures using such surgical implantation significantly sacrifice the comfort and safety of the patient or wearer in an attempt to obtain some, albeit misplaced, confidence that the hairpiece would not be inadvertently removed.
In an effort to provide alternative means for securing a hairpiece to the head of a person, a wide variety of different devices have been invented. For example, the following patents illustrate various hairpiece holding structures: Donoher (U.S. Pat. No. 2,040,246; issued May 12, 1936); Johnson et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 3,651,820; issued Mar. 28, 1972); Brown (U.S. Pat. No. 3,654,935; issued Apr. 11, 1972); Nelson (U.S. Pat. No. 3,970,092; issued Jul. 20, 1976); Agiotis (U.S. Pat. No. 4,168,713; issued Sep. 25, 1979); Levin (U.S. Pat. No. 4,176,669; issued Dec. 4, 1979); Finamore et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,033,486; issued Jul. 23, 1991); Finamore et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 5,117,846; issued Jun. 2, 1992); and Hargrett (U.S. Pat. No. 5,357,986; issued Oct. 25, 1994).
Use of the devices identified above often presents several significant problems. For example, many of such devices are very expensive to design, engineer, manufacture, mass produce, and mass distribute. In many cases, the persons who need such devices the most often are the least able to afford them. This is particularly true in the case of elderly persons and senior citizens who may have a restricted source of income.
The effectiveness of such devices is less than desired.
Such devices are usually very uncomfortable to wear. For example, the adhesive material is usually urged directly against the scalp of the wearer and does not generally permit breathing of the adjacent skin. Consequently, when the wearer's scalp perspires or is rained upon, a moist and damp environment is created between the scalp of the wearer and the hairpiece. The feelings of dampness, moisture and sweating are very distracting and uncomfortable for the wearer. Furthermore, the adhesive forces between the adhesive material and the scalp are greatly reduced in such a damp environment, often causing the device to fail. Under such circumstances, the wearer would feel very insecure about the reliability of using such adhesive material.
If the patient frequently replaces the device in order to avoid the unpleasant feeling of moisture and dampness, the wearer must purchase, stock and replenish a vast number of replacement devices. Due to the exorbitant price of such devices, frequent replacement of the devices can be extremely expensive, inconvenient, and time consuming.
If the device is not frequently replaced, the capacity of the adhesive strips to hold the hairpiece in place may be exceeded. The result, much to the dismay and embarrassment of the wearer, is failure of the device to properly retain the hairpiece in position.
When the adhesive strips are adhered to the wearer's scalp for prolonged periods of time, various skin diseases and chaffing of the skin and/or scalp of the wearer often results.
Another notable disadvantage is the dramatically limited application of the above-mentioned devices to different scalp conditions. In other words, the devices are designed to only function in particular scalp and hair conditions. For example, a double sided adhesive strip would not work well when hair of the wearer is only thinning and a sufficient amount of scalp is unavailable for adequate adhesion. Conversely, if the wearer's scalp is completely bald, devices that utilize interlacing of the wearer's hair through a mesh material to hold the hairpiece in place cannot be effectively used. The structural requirements and limitations of such hairpiece holding devices significantly limit the actual market for those devices.
The inventor believes that the above-cited devices and patents, whether taken alone or in combination, neither anticipate nor render obvious the current invention. The foregoing explanation and citations do not constitute an admission that such devices or patents are relevant or material to the appended patent claims. Rather, such devices and patents relate only to the general field of the current invention.